COVID-19, Financial Situation of Households and Distance Learning - Our Society - Special - April 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Less than two thirds of respondents (64%) said that their household incomes remained the same at the time of COVID, more than a quarter (27%) said they had fallen, of which 9% said significantly. In 8% of households, income increased. The resulting findings do not change significantly during the pandemic. Almost three-fifths of households said that they could manage on finances for more than half a year in the current situation. 5% of households no longer come up with finances, another 5% would last a maximum of a month. The assessment of the financial situation has not changed since the last survey (February). As expected, the financial situation depends on the socio-professional status of the respondent and especially on the amount of household income (the difference between the first and the tenth deciles in the answer "more than half a year" is 52 percentage points). One third of respondents agree with current closure of all schools, two thirds disagree. The agreement rate decreased by 7 percentage points compared to the September survey. More than half of parents (54%) manage distance learning easily, two fifths (40%) find it difficult.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".